Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
HID Lydia is Winona Ryder
A great likeness! @HID3D - any plans to do 2000's era Katie Holmes?
Or a 70's era Deborah Harry :D
Whoops, double post
V3D's take on Lynda Carter?
https://www.daz3d.com/v3d-britney-hd-for-genesis-9
hope not looks nothing like her
I see Tiffani Amber Theissan (especially in photo 4), but Vicey is great at straddling that line where it's more homage than direct copy.
Any character suggestions regarding some of the Hammer Horror ladies?
Five knockouts that imediatly come to mind:
Valerie Leon
Caroline Munroe
Ingrid Pitt
Madeline Smith
Yute Stensgaard
Not to mention the golden boys of Hammer, Peter Cusing & Christopher Lee.
Appologies for some reason the forum does not like pics of Van Helsing & Dracula
Have you guys heard about how Trump just signed a bill outlawing all deepfakes? Will that apply to 3-D renders?
3D models are a far cry from what AI is capable of, as evidenced by the ongoing debates on these threads over which celebrities the growing list of 3D models featured here on Daz and other marketplaces are meant to resemble.
IIRC from past conversations DAZ in particular discourages exact copies of celebrities (hence the debate sometimes, the blurring of the lines is often deliberate to avoid these accusations). I think it will be a long time before 3D renders are at a level to be mentioned in the same breath as AI deepfake videos.
That depends on how the bill is written, specifically whether the authors of that bill understand and articulated the difference between deepfakes and 3D renders.
Maybe, as long as the model isn't given the real person's name (Which none ever are), then they will continue to be ok. How can you prove who it is? Just LOOKING like someone doesn't prove it is them. That should be enough because, after all, just about EVERY models resembles somebody, somewhere..
Any Wrestling fans getting a CM Punk vibe from Phx Roderick?
Not the build but the face in thumbnail.
Lookalikes are not an exact copy of someone. I wrote a post here once about it and several times over at Facebook, they don't even have to be of the same skin color or have the same bone structure. I even used photos of real celebrity lookalikes to make my point. I wrote them because people started arguments about how the models looked nothing like the real person, but such people don't even see or understand the "caricature" modeling that some PAs are/were doing.
Deepfakes are something else entirely. It's when you can't tell if it's the real person.
Here's the comment. I went into more detail on my Facebook posts. https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/7537571/#Comment_7537571
I see it.
Yup, it's the face that we should be looking at when discussing lookalikes, the bodies can always be morphed into a closer build.
Totally with you on the Hammer girls, especially Yutte Stensgaard!
If it does affect 3D renders (I don't think so) it actually depends, ironically, on how good the lookalike is. But with the way things go, even a passing resemblence might be enough to get in trouble.
Apparently embedded images, when linked to my DAZ 3D gallery, now have a very limited lifetime...
https://www.daz3d.com/donnie-for-genesis-9
KTH by totocandy at RenderHub - Kim Tae-hee
This is from the actual bill. I've italicized the relevant parts that I believe could be interpreted to include 3D art:
“(B) DIGITAL FORGERY.—The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, that, when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual."
I don't even know who that is.
I did a forum search and saw plenty of candidates for the role of Jennifer Lawrence, but I'm casting Cherubit's Abigail for the part.
[edit=1] Maybe just watermarking the output, "All characters computer generated works of fiction, ©(the artist)" to exploit the reasonable person loophole. [/edit]
Hallelujah!
Disciple
Yeah, that could and definitely would be interpreted by a lawyer as these lookalikes falling into that category. If I were a PA and saw this, I'd be quite concerned about making them, and anyone who does get them, protect yourself by not posting anything. I'd say they're good for personal use, but anything that floats around and and could be questioned will be quite vulernable. Potentially exposing yourself to legal scrutiny is not worth the risk.
The bill says "Intimate visual depiction". Well, the models (as sold) are just pictures of faces or, sometimes, bodies. The bodies are normally shown clothed when you're purchasing a model. They are, really, no different than any other pictures on the web. It's only what a person does on their computer at home that may kick it into the "intimate" catagory. This whole bill is about what people put out in public.
This is an issue that is going to need legal advice iif you beleive you might be affected, not a forum discussion.
Quote:
"... is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual ..."
That part alone probably means that look-a-likes don't count. Look-a-likes aren't clones, so will always be in some way distinguishable from whoever they look like.
Sorry Richard, hadn't seen your post when posting that.